Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false (mutating) and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds no additional behavioral context. It says 'connects to an X account' without explaining what that entails (e.g., authorization requirements, side effects on the account). The description neither contradicts the annotations nor enriches them, offering minimal transparency beyond what is already structured.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise—two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action and mentions the account connection. However, it is so brief that it may be under-specifying rather than elegantly concise, which is why it doesn't reach a 5.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a creation tool with six parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It omits important context such as how the idempotencyKey should be used, the meaning of 'connects to an X account', and any prerequisites or return values. The agent lacks sufficient guidance to invoke the tool correctly, especially for edge cases like duplicate names or validation rules.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema provides descriptions for 4 of 6 parameters (67% coverage), including accountId, color, order, and isPinned. The description itself adds no parameter-level information, so it relies entirely on the schema. Since coverage is high, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not compensate for the undocumented parameters (name, idempotencyKey) but doesn't need to given schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('creates a new folder') and identifies the resource (folder) and the associated account connection. It distinguishes itself from sibling folder tools (get/list/update/delete) by specifying the creation verb, and the title reinforces this. However, it doesn't add any specific details about what a folder is or its purpose beyond the bare action, so it falls short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that creating a folder is a prerequisite for other operations, nor does it reference sibling tools like xplanner_update_folder or xplanner_delete_folder for subsequent actions. No exclusions or conditions are given, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.